Therapeutic Risk Management of the Suicidal Patient Bridget B. Matarazzo, PsyD

• No to little experience

• A few cases a year (monthly)

• Regularly perform suicide risk management (weekly)

• Almost all of my job is dedicated to suicide risk management (almost daily)

Poll 01 – Familiarity w/Suicide Risk Management?

• Not at all comfortable/very anxious

• Some comfort but feel anxious throughout

• Decent level of comfort but occasional cases cause stress

• Quite comfortable – no to little anxiety

Poll 02 – Comfort w/Suicide Risk Management?

• Take good care of our patients and to guide our interventions

• Take good care of ourselves • Risk management is a reality of psychiatric practice

• 15-68% of psychiatrists have experienced a patient suicide

• Suicide/attempted suicide is one of the most common malpractice claim

Why Assess Risk?

Alexander, 2000; Chemtob, 1989

Fear/Stress and Clinical Decision Making

FEA

R/S

TRES

S

TIME

Not a good

time to

problem

solve!

Will be better

at making

decisions

Fear/Stress and Clinical Decision Making FE

AR

/STR

ESS

TIME

Armed with a better way to

assess, conceptualize, and

mitigate risk, a clinician’s

fear will not peak as high

• Via medicolegally informed practice that exceeds the standard of care

• Fortunately, the best way to care for our potentially

suicidal patients and ourselves are one in the same • Clinically based risk management is patient centered

• Supports treatment process and therapeutic alliance

• Good clinical care = best risk management

Mitigating Fear...

Simon 2006

The series can be found in The Journal of Psychiatric Practice Acknowledgements: Hal Wortzel, PhD Beeta Homaifar, PhD Bridget Matarazzo, PsyD Lisa Brenner, PhD, ABPP (Rp)

Therapeutic Risk Management (TRM) of the Suicidal Patient

1. Conduct and document clinical risk assessment

2. Augment clinical risk assessment with structured instruments

3. Stratify risk in terms of both severity and temporality

4. Develop and document a Safety Plan

• Supports the patient’s treatment and the therapeutic alliance

• Seeks to balance the sometimes competing ethical principles of autonomy, non-maleficence, and beneficence

• Avoids defensive practices of dubious benefit that, paradoxically, can invite a malpractice suit

• Unduly defensive mindset can distract the clinician from providing good patient care

Therapeutic Risk Management

Simon & Shuman 2009

1. Conduct and document clinical risk assessment

• Suicide is a rare event

• No standard of care for the prediction of suicide

• Efforts at prediction yield lots of false-positives as well as some false-negatives

• Structured scales may augment, but do not replace systematic risk assessment

• Actuarial analysis does not reveal specific treatable risk factors or modifiable protective factors for individual patients

Concepts to be on the same page about

• Gather information related to the patient’s intent to engage in suicide-related behavior

• Evaluate factors that elevate or reduce the risk of acting on that intent

• Integrate all available information to determine the level of risk and appropriate care

Overarching Goal

VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for the Assessment and Management of Suicide Risk

• Reduce current unwarranted practice variation and provide facilities with a structured framework to help prevent suicide and other forms of suicidal self directed violent behavior

• Provide evidence-based recommendations to assist providers and their patients in the decision making process

Intent of the guideline

Module A: Assessment and Determination of the Risk for Suicide

Module B: Initial Management of Patient at Risk for Suicide

Module C: Treatment of the Patient at Risk for Suicide

Module D: Follow-up & Monitoring of Patient at Risk for Suicide

Annotations are presented in four modules addressing the following components of care

•For whom should suicide risk assessment processes be completed?

•Any person who is identified as being at possible suicide risk should be formally assessed for suicide risk

Decision point:

A1. Any patient with the following conditions should be assessed for suicide risk: Person reports suicidal thoughts on depression screening tool Person scores very high on depression screening tool and is identified as having concerns of suicide Person is seeking help (self-referral) and reporting suicidal thoughts Person for whom the provider has concerns about suicide- based on the provider’s clinical judgment Person with history of suicide attempt or recent history of self directed violence.

A. Person Suspected to Have Suicidal Thoughts, a recent Suicide Attempt, or Self-directed Violence Behavior

• Universal Screening: routine depression screening as part of regular health maintenance.

• Instruments like the PHQ-9 (which includes a question regarding presence of suicidal ideation) are widely accepted and administered to patients in primary care settings.

What About Screening?

Suicide Risk Assessment

A process in which the healthcare provider gathers clinical information in order to determine the patient’s risk for suicide.

•Gather information related to the patient’s intent to engage in suicide-related behavior.

•Evaluate factors that elevate or reduce the risk of acting on that intent.

•Integrate all available information to determine the level of risk and appropriate care.

Assessment and Determination of Risk

C. Assessment of Suicidal Ideation, Intent, and Behavior

D. Assessment of Factors that Contribute to the Risk for Suicide

E. Determine the Level of Risk

Suicide Risk

Not just suicidal ideation Current & Past

Risk Factors

Warning Signs

Protective Factors

Indicators of Risk

Ideation → Intent → Plan → Access to Means

•Specific & Direct •“Tell me about what you think/what goes through your head”

•Assess •Onset, frequency, duration, severity

Ideation → Intent → Plan → Access to Means

C1. Ask the patient if he/she has thoughts about wishing to die by suicide, or thoughts of engaging in suicide-related behavior.

C2. Should be directly asked if they have thoughts of suicide and to describe them. The evaluation of suicidal thoughts should include the following: a. Onset, b. Duration, Intensity, and c. Frequency.

•Intent •Willingness to act/Reasons for dying

•How do these size up to barriers to act/reasons for living?

Ideation → Intent → Plan → Access to Means

C2. Assess for past or present evidence (implicit or explicit) that the individual wishes to die, means to kill him/herself, and understands the probable consequences of his/her actions or potential actions.

Suicide Intent

Subjective Suicide Intent

Objective Suicide Intent

•Plan •Preparatory Behaviors?

• Access to means, letters, rehearsal, research

Ideation → Intent→ Plan → Access to Means

C3. Assess if the patient has begun to show actual behavior of preparation for engaging in Self-Directed Violence (e.g., assembling a method, preparing for one’s death).

Precipitating emotions, thoughts, or behaviors that are most proximally associated with a suicidal act and reflect high risk

Recognize Warning Signs

Direct Warning Signs 1. Suicidal communication 2. Preparation for suicide 3. Seeking access or recent use of lethal means

Other Potential Warning Signs

Substance abuse – increasing or excessive substance use Hopelessness – feels that nothing can be done to improve the situation Purposelessness –no sense of purpose, no reason for living Anger – rage, seeking revenge Recklessness –engaging impulsively in risky behavior Feeling Trapped –feelings of being trapped with no way out Social Withdrawal – withdrawing from family, friends, society Anxiety – agitation, irritability, feeling like wants to “jump out of my skin” Mood changes – dramatic changes in mood, lack of interest in usual activities Sleep Disturbances – insomnia, unable to sleep or sleeping all the time Guilt or Shame – Expressing overwhelming self-blame or remorse

•Decision point: How do additional factors contribute to risk?

•Evaluate factors that elevate or reduce the risk of acting on that intent.

D1. Assess factors that are known to be associated with suicide (i.e., risk factors, precipitants) and those that may decrease the risk (i.e., protective factors). D2. Risk factors distinguish a higher risk group from a lower risk group. Risk factors may be modifiable or non-modifiable and both inform the formulation of risk for suicide. Modifiable risk factors may also be targets of intervention. D3. Protective factors are capacities, qualities, environmental and personal resources that drive individuals towards growth, stability, and health and may reduce the risk for suicide. D5. Assess the availability or intent to acquire lethal means including firearms and ammunition, drugs, poisons and other means in the patient’s home.

• Risk Factors • Increase the likelihood of suicidal behavior and include modifiable and non-

modifiable indicators

• Protective Factors • Capacities, qualities, environmental and personal resources that increase

resilience

• Drive individuals towards growth, stability, and health

• Increase coping with different life events

• Decrease the likelihood of suicidal behavior

Risk vs Protective Factors

2. Augment clinical risk assessment with structured instruments

Poll 03 – Do you regularly use standardized assessments during suicide risk assessment?

• Yes

• No

• Providers across disciplines generally avoid using formal assessment approaches (e.g., validated tools) in favor of using their own clinical interviews (Jobes, 1995)

• Unstructured clinical interviews have the potential to miss important aspects of risk assessment

• Using both will facilitate a more nuanced, multifaceted approach to suicide risk assessment

Formal Assessment Approaches

• Augment clinical care

• Serve an important medicolegal function

• Help to realize therapeutic risk management of the suicidal patient

A Review of Suicide Assessment Measures for Intervention Research with Adults and Older Adults Gregory K. Brown, Ph.D. University of Pennsylvania http://www.sprc.org/sites/sprc.org/files/library/BrownReviewAssessmentMeasuresAdultsOlderAdults.pdf

The addition of reliable/valid self-report measures can…

http://www.sprc.org/sites/sprc.org/files/library/BrownReviewAssessmentMeasuresAdultsOlderAdults.pdfhttp://www.sprc.org/sites/sprc.org/files/library/BrownReviewAssessmentMeasuresAdultsOlderAdults.pdfhttp://www.sprc.org/sites/sprc.org/files/library/BrownReviewAssessmentMeasuresAdultsOlderAdults.pdf

• Time • Accessibility • Credentials/Training of administrator • How it will inform risk assessment • Measuring baseline and movement over time

Things to Consider

• Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) • Assesses hopelessness within the past week

• ~5 minutes

One of the few measures that has demonstrated an association with death by suicide

• Reasons for Living Inventory (RFL) • Assesses reasons for living that may serve a protective function for someone

considering suicide

• ~10 minutes

• Beck Scale for Suicidal Ideation (BSS)

• ~5 minutes

One of the few measures that has shown an association with death by suicide

Some Measures Used by Rocky Mountain MIRECC Suicide Prevention Consultation Service

BSS • During the first appointment, the BSS is used to establish a baseline

regarding an individual’s level of suicidal ideation

• Due to the transient nature of suicidal ideation, the BSS is also administered at the beginning of subsequent appointments

• Any changes in the score and/or composition of responses are then discussed with the patient, and this information is used to augment the assessment of the patient’s acute risk for suicide

If a patient endorses the BSS item indicating uncertainty about whether he or she will make a suicide attempt, and this is a different response than that given in the previous appointment, the provider will then follow-up with questions aimed at further understanding this change in response.

What if I am unfamiliar with how to incorporate these tools into practice?

The inclusion of instruments such as the BSS in the patient’s medical record helps to establish a baseline regarding suicidal ideation

• Facilitates subsequent risk assessments, including those performed by providers with less familiarity with the patient

• May reduce unnecessary hospitalizations (as may occur when baseline levels of suicidal ideation are misidentified as suicidal crisis)

• May facilitate life-saving interventions (when spikes in suicide risk are more readily apparent because of a well documented baseline)

Rationale for use

Advantages: • Require little time to

administer

• Relatively easy to administer and therefore conducive to settings where time constraints are heavy

• Provide a modality in which patients may feel more comfortable disclosing sensitive information, such as suicidal ideation and behaviors

• Provide a quantitative measure of suicide risk

Potential Challenges: • Time needed to familiarize

themselves with the administration/scoring/interpretation of such measures

• Potential for over-reliance on a quantitative score of suicide risk which, if used in the absence of clinical judgment, is not capable of capturing the gestalt of the drivers of suicide risk

• Tendency to focus on suicide risk assessment as an event, rather than a process

While suicide-specific assessment instruments can assist providers in the clinical assessment of suicidal ideation and behavior, such instruments are not a substitute for clinical judgment No single assessment or series of assessments is able to accurately predict the emergence of a suicidal crisis

Caveat

3. Stratification of Risk

• 29 y/o female

• 18 suicide attempts and chronic SI • Currently reports below baseline SI & stable mood

• Numerous psychiatric admissions

• Family history of suicide

• Owns a gun

• Intermittent homelessness • Currently reports having stable housing

• Alcohol dependence • Has sustained sobriety for 6 months

• Borderline Personality Disorder

What’s the Risk?

Poll 04 – What’s your risk estimation?

• Low

• Intermediate

• High

Severity

Low Intermediate High

Stratify Risk – Severity & Temporality

Low Intermediate High

Acute Chronic

• Essential features: • SI with intent to die by suicide AND

• Inability to maintain safety independent of external support/help

• Likely to be present: • Plan

• Access to means

• Recent/ongoing preparatory behaviors and/or SA

• Acute Axis I illness (e.g., MDD episode, acute mania, acute psychosis, drug relapse)

• Exacerbation of Axis II condition

• Acute psychosocial stressor (e.g., job loss, relationship change)

• Action: • Psychiatric hospitalization

High Acute Risk

#RMIRECC

• Essential features: • Ability to maintain safety independent of external support/help

• Likely to be present: • May present similarly to those at high acute risk except for:

• Action: • Consider psychiatric hospitalization

• Intensive outpatient management

Intermediate Acute Risk

• Essential features: • No current intent AND

• No suicidal plan AND

• No preparatory behaviors AND

• Collective high confidence (e.g., patient, care providers, family members) in the ability of the patient to independently maintain safety

• Likely to be present: • May have SI but without intent/plan

• If plan is present, it is likely vague with no preparatory behaviors

• Capable of using appropriate coping strategies

• Action: • Can be managed in primary care

• Mental health treatment may be indicated

Low Acute Risk

• High • Prior SA, chronic conditions (diagnoses, pain, substance use), limited coping skills,

unstable/erratic psychosocial status (housing, rltp), limited reasons for living

• Can become acutely suicidal, often in the context of unpredictable situational contingencies

• Routine mental health f/up, safety plan, routine screening, means restriction, intervention work on coping skills/augmenting protective factors

• Intermediate • BALANCE of protective factors, coping skills, reasons for living, and stability suggests

ENHANCED ability to endure crises without resorting to SDV

• Routine mental health care to monitor conditions and maintain/enhance coping skills/protective factors, safety plan

• Low • History of managing stressors without resorting to SI

• Typically absent: history of SDV, chronic SI, tendency toward impulsive/risky behaviors, severe/persistent mental illness, marginal psychosocial functioning

Chronic Risk

• 29 y/o female

• 18 suicide attempts and chronic SI • Currently reports below baseline SI & stable mood

• Numerous psychiatric admissions

• Family history of suicide

• Owns a gun

• Intermittent homelessness • Currently reports having stable housing

• Alcohol dependence • Has sustained sobriety for 6 months

• Borderline Personality Disorder

What’s the Risk?

Stratify Risk – Severity & Temporality

Low Intermediate High

Acute Chronic

Although patient carries many static risk factors placing her at high chronic risk for engaging in suicidal behaviors, her present mood, stable housing, sustained sobriety, and SI below baseline

and no current intent suggest low acute/imminent risk for suicidal behavior

Risk Assessment and Formulation: Documentation

Ideation → Intent → Plan → Access to Means

4. Develop and Document a Safety Plan

• Typically entails a patient agreeing to not harm themselves

• Despite a lack of empirical support, commonly used (up to 79%) by mental health professionals

• Not recommended for multiple reasons

• No medicolegal protection

• Negatively influences provider behavior

• Not patient-centered

“No-Suicide Contracts”

Drew, 1999; Range et al., 2002; Rudd et al., 2006; Simon, 1999

• Brief clinical intervention

• Follows risk assessment

• Hierarchical and prioritized list of strategies

• Used preceding or during a suicidal crisis

• Involves collaboration between the client and clinician

Safety Planning

Stanley, B., & Brown, G.K. (with Karlin, B., Kemp, J.E., & VonBergen. H.A.). (2008). Safety Plan Treatment Manual to Reduce Suicide Risk: Veteran Version.

• Collaboration essential when working with individuals who are suicidal

• Ways to increase collaboration • Sit side-by-side

• Use a paper form

• Have the individual write

• Provide brief instructions using client’s words

• Conversational approach

• Jointly address barriers and use problem-solving

Tips for Developing a Safety Plan Collaboratively

Ellis, 2004; Rudd, 2006; Jobes, 2006

Provide Rationale

• Ask: What’s your thinking like in a crisis? • Stop, Drop, & Roll analogy • Catch it early!

• Purpose: Identify and attend to warning signs for suicidal ideation/behavior

• List specific and personalized examples in patient’s own words • Thoughts

• Emotions

• Behaviors

• Physical sensations

Step 1: Warning Signs

Ask:

“How will you know when to use your safety plan?”

“What are your personal red flags?”

Step 2: Internal Coping Strategies

Ask:

“What can you do on your own to prevent yourself from acting on suicidal thoughts or urges?”

“How likely would you be able to do this during a time of crisis?”

• Purpose: Take the individual’s mind off of problems to prevent escalation of suicidal thoughts

• List activities client can do without contacting another person

• Take a hot shower • Listen to my “chill out” play list • Pet my dog

• Encourage patient to build “coping memory”

Step 3: Social Contacts and Settings for Distraction

Ask: “Who helps you feel better when you socialize with them?” “What social settings help you take your mind off your problems at

least for a little while?”

• Purpose: Engage with people and social settings that provide distraction

• List people or safe places that offer distraction • Important to include phone numbers and multiple options • Avoid listing any contentious relationships • Examples of places: park, coffee shops, places of worship

Step 4: People Who I can Ask for Help

Ask: “Among your family or friends, who do you think you could contact for help during a crisis?” “Who is supportive of you and who do you feel that you can talk with when you’re under stress?”

• Purpose: Tell a family member or friend that he/she is in crisis and needs support

• List names and phone numbers of supportive others • Can be same people as Step 3, but different purpose • Include multiple options and prioritize list • If possible, share safety plan with the family member or friend

Step 5: Professionals and Agencies to Contact for Help

Ask:

Who are the mental health professionals that we should identify to be on your safety plan?”

• Purpose: List professionals/services to reach out to if previous steps did not resolve the crisis

• List name, phone number and location of • Primary mental health provider and other providers • Emergency psychiatric services

• National Suicide Prevention Line: 1-800-273-TALK (8255) • Veterans Crisis Line: 1-800-273-TALK (8255), press 1 • 911

• Purpose: Eliminate or limit access to lethal means

• Bonus purpose: Increase reminders of reasons for living

• Means-restriction counseling • Always ask about access to a firearm

• Assess access to other means

• Example: Discuss medications and how they are stored/managed

• Consider alcohol and drugs as a conduit to lethal means

• Reminders of reasons for living may include photos of loved ones, inspirational quotes, etc.

Step 6: Making the Environment Safe

Ask: “What means do you have access to and are likely to use to make a suicide

attempt?” “How can we develop a plan to limit your access to these means?”

• Increase access • Personalize • Encourage regular practice • Share with others • Update regularly • Use technology

Enhancing Patient Use of the Safety Plan

Bridget Matarazzo, PsyD Bridget.Matarazzo@va.gov

www.mirecc.va.gov/visn19

Thank you!

#RMIRECC

mailto:Bridget.Matarazzo@va.gov

Alexander DA, Klein S, Gray NM, et al. Suicide by patients: Questionnaire study of its effects on consultant psychiatrists. BMJ 2000;320:1571–4. Beck AT, Steer RA, Ranieri WF. Scale for suicidal ideation: Psychometric properties of a self-report version. J Clin Psychol 1988;44:499–505 Brown, GK. A review of suicide assessment measures for intervention research with adults and older adults. Retrieved from http://www.sprc.org/sites/sprc.org/files/library/BrownReviewAssessment MeasuresAdultsOlderAdults.pdf Brown GK, Beck AT, Steer RA, et al. Risk factors for suicide in psychiatric outpatients: A 20-year prospective study. J Consult Clin Psychol 2000;68:371–7. Chemtob CM, Bauer GB, Hamada RS, Pelowski SR, Muraoka MY. Patient suicide: Occupational hazard for psychologists and psychiatrists. Prof Psychol Res and Practice 1989;20(5):294-300. Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Defense. VA/DoD clinical practice guideline for assessment and management of patients at risk for suicide. 2013. Retrieved from http://www.healthquality.va.gov/guidelines/MH/srb/VADODCP_SuicideRisk_Full.pdf Drew BL. No-suicide contracts to prevent suicidal behavior in inpatient psychiatric settings. J Am Psychiatric Nurses Assoc 1999;5:23–8. Ellis TE. Collaboration and a self-help orientation in therapy with suicidal clients. J Contemp Psychother 2004;34(1):41-57. Homaifar B, Matarazzo B, Wortzel HS. Therapeutic risk management of the suicidal patient: Augmenting clinical suicide risk assessment with structured instruments. J Psychiatr Pract 2013;19:406–9. Jobes DA. Managing suicidal risk: A collaborative approach. New York: Guilford; 2006. Jobes DA, Eryman JR, Yufit RI. How clinicians assess suicide risk in adolescents and adults. Crisis Intervention & Time-Limited Treatment 1995;2:1–12.

References

Linehan MM, Goodstein JL, Nielsen SL, et al. Reasons for staying alive when you are thinking of killing yourself: The Reasons for Living Inventory. J Consult Clin Psychol 1983; 51:276–86. Matarazzo B, Homaifar B, Wortzel HS,. Therapeutic risk management of the suicidal patient: Safety planning. J Psychiatr Pract 2014;20:220–224. Range LM, Campbell C, Kovac SH, et al. No-suicide contracts: An overview and recommendations. Death Studies 2002;26:51–74. Rudd, M.D. (2006). The assessment and management of suicidality. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press. Rudd MD, Madrusiak M, Joiner TE. The case against no suicide contracts: The commitment to treatment statement as a practice alternative. J Clin Psychol 2006;62:243–51. Simon RI. The suicide prevention contract: Clinical, legal, and risk management issues. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 1999;27:245–50. Simon RI, Shuman DW. Therapeutic risk management of clinical-legal dilemmas: Should it be a core competency? J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2009;37:155–61. Stanley B, Brown GK (with Karlin B, Kemp JE, & VonBergen HA). Safety Plan Treatment Manual to Reduce Suicide Risk: Veteran Version. 2008. Wortzel HS, Matarazzo B, Homaifar B. A model for therapeutic risk management of the suicidal patient. J Psychiatr Pract 2013;19:323–6. Wortzel HS, Matarazzo B, Homaifar B, et al. Therapeutic risk management of the suicidal patient: Stratifying risk in terms of severity and temporality. J Psychiatr Pract 2014;20:63–7.

References